Hi, > On 13 Jul 2020, at 19:27, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I don't think we are that tribal. Look at the QUIC WG happily mixing contributions from application, transport and security experts, with management also debated. I am sure there are other examples. > >> >> -- Christian Huitema > > +1 > > Lots of the best work we do is spread across the fuzzy boundaries between areas. I agree with Stewart. My experience is that the IETF is quite tribal. That doesn’t mean that the tribes divide along the lines of WGs and areas, but more along technology. That’s not to say that there is no intermingling, but on rare occasion the knives do come out. Part of this is just due to specialization. > > Areas have changed over the years, and I’d be reticent to see these areas institutionalized to the point that people choose “primary” affiliations. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to choose an affiliation. I agree that hardcoding areas is a bad idea. They are already hardcoded enough (the number of changes in 30 years can be counted on two hands at most). In a way, I wish we could strip the labels entirely and just let the IESG self-organize around the work at hand, indicating to NOMCOM how many people they feel they need to cover the workload. Eliot
